The A7 and A7r I really don't get however. If you just want 30+ MP and/or greater DR than Canon offers, buy a D800(E). At least you will have a large selection of lenses available and know the manufacturer won't abandon you by moving on to a new lens mount or IBIS in a few months.

Maybe because with the D800 you have to commit to 100% swapping systems right now. Give up the better Canon video, the Canon 24-70 II and 17 and 24 T&S and 70-300L and MPE, nicer UI, etc. With the A7R you don't.

If you are a Canon user you are getting it for the MP/DR for landscapes most likely. You are not replacing your 5D3 or 1DX or 7D with this, it's a supplement. A hack to get the DR Canon refuses to deliver to so far.

I wasn't trying to advocate switching to Nikon, just making the point that if somebody was determined to chase the MP/DR of the Sony FF sensor, Nikon is probably a better choice than Sony. Until its proven that Canon glass works extremely well with the A7/A7r, I'll remain skeptical.

1. How many times did you hit the kids with your 1D X + 24-70 and 70-300?

And

2. How many advil did you take after that trip?

I would go that route if there is no other choices. Here we have some options to choose, why not use that as our advantage.

None and none. I don't have any problems with my coordination, and I've spent so much time carrying my kids around as they're growing up that even my 1D X + 600/4L IS II doesn't seem like that much of a load...

Choices are good, but we make them based on priorities. Sometimes small size is most important, but often with kids I prioritize AF, frame rate, and high ISO performance.

Also, are the Sony cameras weather sealed? Beyond water rides at amusement parks, I live in New England. We have this stuff here called weather (well, they call it weathaaah, but since I was born in California and lived there for over 30 years, I know how to use the letter 'R'), that you don't get in CA. A sunny, 85° day can turn quickly to a 'wicked bad downpoaaah', you're a target in a snowball fight whether or not you're holding a camera, etc.

1. How many times did you hit the kids with your 1D X + 24-70 and 70-300?

And

2. How many advil did you take after that trip?

I would go that route if there is no other choices. Here we have some options to choose, why not use that as our advantage.

None and none. I don't have any problems with my coordination, and I've spent so much time carrying my kids around as they're growing up that even my 1D X + 600/4L IS II doesn't seem like that much of a load...

Choices are good, but we make them based on priorities. Sometimes small size is most important, but often with kids I prioritize AF, frame rate, and high ISO performance.

Also, are the Sony cameras weather sealed? Beyond water rides at amusement parks, I live in New England. We have this stuff here called weather (well, they call it weathaaah, but since I was born in California and lived there for over 30 years, I know how to use the letter 'R'), that you don't get in CA. A sunny, 85° day can turn quickly to a 'wicked bad downpoaaah', you're a target in a snowball fight whether or not you're holding a camera, etc.

Well, I do get the "mirrorless thing". It's simple: with an ultracompact MILC like the A7 I get the world's best available FF sensor AND can go "really small and light" whenever I want to. With any Canon-DSLR ... I can't.

Yes, I want a FF MILC! NOT as a "special purpose second cam" in addition to my existing APS-C DSLR (7D plus assorted EF-S and EF/L lenses from 10mm [=16mm FOV eq.] to 200mm [320mm FOV eq.]) but as a total replacement. I am tired of bulky, noisy, mirror-slapping DSLRs laden with swinging mirrors and submirrors, detached phase-AF units, heavy viewfinder prisms, mechanical shutter units and other opto-mechanical components that need to be precisely manufactured, assembled and adjusted to 1/1000 of a millimetre just to get a sharp picture. I want to fully cash in on the "digital dividend". :-)

And to be as familiar as possible with my gear which I don't use every single day, I want to run one camera system only at any time. Not two or three different camera systems from differnet makers with different user interfaces and different sets of mutually incompatible lenses and accessories.

My idea of "pure photography" is: make it simple. Purely electronic and digital. No moving, mechanical parts inside. No obstructions in the lightpath, that need to be moved out of the way for every capture. No retro crap. Only the dials and buttons absolutely needed. And ... let me see the scene as closely to how the camera will capture it, not as closely to how my naked eye sees it - to get the latter, all I need to do is open my left eye. :-)

So here I am, ready for my first "100% digital" camera. Compact and light. With a 36x24mm sensor to have full DOF isolation potential and excellent Hi-ISO IQ [I need 3200 frequently, 6400 rarely, never more].

All that Canon [and Nikon] are offering to customers like me is inadequate and only maximizes THEIR profits at my expense. "BUY an APS-C DSLR, BUY another one that is only marginally better, and another one or BUY a FF-DSLR (5D III/D800) now, BUY a 5D IV (D900) in 2015 and maybe - but only maybe, BUY a Canon [or Nikon] FF MILC in 2017. Priced at USD 4000+ of course, since CaNikon "really really need some high margin products".

Unlike many others, I am not willing to go that route. I want to cut that short and am looking for "small, yet fully competent gear" now. Not in a rush, sicne my 7D is still fully functional, but sooner, so I can wait a little. If the Sony A7R is not there yet, maybe it's the A8R or some other product by somebody else. :-)

Also unlike many others, I do not need a "chunky camera to hoöld it steady and have a good grip". I'd prefer it to be small and light, when I want to go small and light. And unobtrusive for strreet photography and any other candid situiation. And for those weekend city trips we like to take. And all those nice photo walks with camera and buddies. And when I go mountaineering - I want it to be so small that camera + WA-pancake on it fit into a small pouch attached to my backpack strap up front, ready to take a shot whenever I want to . And for my urban exploration excursions in some industrial ruins, where I need to climb over fences or through broken windows. Large heavy gear is a pain! But inside it is fairly dark, so a small-sensor compact will not cut it. Or for Aunti Mary's 80th birthday party. Or for my niece's wedding. And when I go mountain biking in breathtaking alpine scenery. And and and.

I know, I cannot go small and light with any camera system, on occasions that demand use of fast/longer focal tele lenses. But in all of those situations listed above I hardly ever use my 70-200/2.8 II or even longer tele lenses. And when I occasionally use one, most of the time it will not be handheld but sit on my tripod. So using an adapter (with tripod ring) and handling bigger lens on a small camera body would be no real issue for me. As I am doing now, I'll just switch to liveview and (touch-) screen control. Maybe there will even be adapters offering full functionality of EF lenses not only for AF but also for in-lens IS. It's just a bit too early to make a call on this. Another "chunky" lens I would love to have is the Canon TS-E 24 II. No matter what cam, I'd always use it on a tripod. It doesn't have AF or IS on a Canon DSLR either. So no problem to use it via adapter on a MILC. No risk of a protruding viewfinder bump getting in the way of max. shift [yes a Nikon problem, not Canon]. :-)

Image quality - check. Excellent. Confirmed by the first reviews already. Best sensor in the industry [no, it is not behind the D800 :-)]. Highest resolution and best DR ... at least up to ISO 3200. Yes, I do use and need Hi-ISO a fair bit, but only up to 3200, very rarely to 6400. So don't care for 51200 or more. Cudos to Sony for putting that sensor into such a small package!

Lenses? The good: SonyZeiss 24-70 has in-lens IS ("OSS"), CaNikon has not. If the SonyZeiss turns out to be as good as expected, it would be my pick and cover 50% or more of my shooting situations - both in focal length and in max. aperture. And it will still be way smaller, lighter and less obtrusive on an A7/R than the CaNikon behemoths on a 5D III or D800. :-)

To really "go light" I'd want 3 ultra-compact moderate aperture "pancake" primes. Most of the time I would only carry one lens on me, depending on intended photographic target/shooting situation. a) W/A landscape and confined space pancake ... ideally a 18mm/f 4.0 b) normal view pancake - ideally a Sony FE equivalent to the tiny, "good enough" and dirt cheap Canon EF 40/2.8 [which I have and like]c) a portrait lens - ideally a compact 85/2.0 WITH stabilizer. Sizewise like a Leica M

One more thing: I'd love to get these native primes without manual focus ring & gear - so as "purely AF-versions". :-) Makes 'em smaller, lighter, cheaper and easier to wheatherseal. I am never focusing manually anyways. Sony is not there yet. 1000 USD/Euros for a 55/1.8 are a bad joke. No matter whether it says Zeiss on it or not. But I am confident, Sony will get there fairly soon.

My biggest area of discomfort: I think the Sony E-mount really is a bit too narrow for FF. In combination with the very short flange distance of 18mm it restricts opportunities to design very good, fast lenses at affordable prices. A mistake they'll not be able to correct.

Stabilizer: Sony really, really should have continued their strategy of putting a sensor stabilizer into their cameras. Even if it had added a few mm to body size and another 100 bucks or so to price. One of the serious drawbacks in my view on the A7/R. But maybe they'll put an Olympus-style 5-axes stabilizer into the A8/R. :-)

Autofocus: big question mark. One-Shot probably OK for my needs, even on A7R. Tracking AF likely not yet, even on A7 ... and even for what I expect: people moving at medium speed [not indoor ball sports, not cheetah pursuing impala, no birds in flight or similar]. Unfortunately Sony did not get PD-AF on the A7R sensor. Again, maybe A8R. What I consider "good enough" is exactly what Nikon 1 AF or Oly OMD 1 deliver. Will test it when I can get my hands on an A7/R where I live.

In terms of fps I am happy with anything between 4 and 6 fps. I ain't no "machine gun Joe". 7D is overkill for my needs in that department.

Shutter noise: A7/R ... need to test myself ... but almost certainly "fail". This really bothers me a lot. I do a fair bit of shooting at (classical music) concerts, theatres, in churches etc ... and also a bit of street photography. Silent operation when needed is one of the major attractions of a MILC-system to me. Oh well, maybe A8R. Make it a mech-free shutter please. Electronic global shutter. 100% digital camera.

Battery charge: absolutely disappointing. 200+ shots is not nearly enough. Sony should have added a bit bigger grip to take the regular Alpha battery NP-FM500H with 12 Wh charge. Or a new, better battery. Again, maybe in the the A8/R.

Flash ... probably fail. While Canon is not quite there either [e.g. no 2nd curtain sync and no zoom-head control in wireless operation, not even with RT-gear; no 430EX-RT, no RT-receivers to enable radio wireless on existing 580/430EX IIs] they are clearly ahead of Nikon and way ahead of where (I believe) Sony is. Probably there are and will be third party triggers available, but they are always a far cry from a good, "native" flash system. I have no intention to buy pockewizards or China-stuff when all this flash functionality could and should by all means be built right into the gear from the start. Sony really needs to step up their flash-game. AH yes, I would also like to have a pop-up flash for fill in the camera. It helps me to go light, without a speedlite, when only a little fill is needed. :-)

So - in total more question marks at the moment than thumbs up. But I'll check the A7/R out sometime soon. And I am sure my 7D will easily last me another year if need be.

1. How many times did you hit the kids with your 1D X + 24-70 and 70-300?

And

2. How many advil did you take after that trip?

I would go that route if there is no other choices. Here we have some options to choose, why not use that as our advantage.

None and none. I don't have any problems with my coordination, and I've spent so much time carrying my kids around as they're growing up that even my 1D X + 600/4L IS II doesn't seem like that much of a load...

Choices are good, but we make them based on priorities. Sometimes small size is most important, but often with kids I prioritize AF, frame rate, and high ISO performance.

Also, are the Sony cameras weather sealed? Beyond water rides at amusement parks, I live in New England. We have this stuff here called weather (well, they call it weathaaah, but since I was born in California and lived there for over 30 years, I know how to use the letter 'R'), that you don't get in CA. A sunny, 85° day can turn quickly to a 'wicked bad downpoaaah', you're a target in a snowball fight whether or not you're holding a camera, etc.

I didn't know you from California Neuro What part of california? city?

I came to US, california when I was 15yrs. I haven't move since.

I believe A7 series is weather sealed, but I doubt is good as a 1D X. Well, I do agree with you on tracking kid with mirrorless. I'm no expert in photography, but I think I can get a single shot with kid running.

Again, if this camera works out as I planned. I might end up with just one 5D III + 135L + 70-200.

On that site, a member raised an interesting point ... which I agree with and it is one of the reasons why I am apprehensive about getting any Sony gear:"This is my biggest concern, That I’ll get the camera in Dec and then in Feb they’ll release an IBIS version and make all future lenses without IBIS after the 2 already announced. Leaving early adopters with only a couple of IS lenses"

Note: IBIS = In Body Image Stabilization

This is a serious concern, inasmuch as all the Sony & Minolta A-mount lenses one (well, I) might have hoped to use on these cameras were designed without stabilization because Sony's dslrs all have IBIS. Do we know why they dropped it for the A7s? Is it not possible to have FF sensor + IBIS in a body that size? The Olympus OMD EM5 has what was at the time state-of-the-art IBIS and it has the same size body, give or take a few mm, but of course a significantly smaller sensor.

I just don't get mirrorless. Well...I sorta do...I kinda get Fuji mirrorless, but that's about it.

I don't get interchangeable lenses on a mirrorless. If I want a smaller, fake Leica body I'd want a single, fixed lens moderate zoom (24mm-100mm for example). I'm not going to use a 200mm 2.8 lens on a mirrorless camera, much less a 70-300 or 100-400 zoom. No point. I'd rather pay a little more, get a stellar zoom that I can use under all conditions and save the interchangeable lenses for the DSLR, which is a lot more practical form factor for changing lenses.

I don't get interchangeable prime lenses on a mirrorless. If I have to carry two-three lenses what advantage does a mirrorless have?

I don't get electronic viewfinders for the sake of electronic viewfinders. Maybe the technology will get there someday, but it's not there today. That's one thing I like about Fuji. They found a nice way to blend optical and electronic.

You have a point, at least as far as FF mirrorless is concerned: if the point is to go small and light the lenses prevent that from happening unless Sony or whoever comes up with a range of small lenses, which presumably means no fast zooms of any focal length and no primes longer than c. 100mm. Maybe my perspective is odd because I often want to go much longer than that (my "go to" FF lens is 70-300L), but I wonder how appealing such limitations are. If size/weight really matter, m43 makes more sense to me, especially given how surprisingly well the latest models do in combination with the primes and better zooms.

But mirrorless has an appeal that has nothing to do with size. Once you've experienced the accuracy (for still subjects, at any rate, but that seems to be changing) and speed of focus points that almost cover the entire viewfinder/monitor (well, that's true of Olympus and Panasonic - their rivals don't seem to have caught up yet), you feel a bit limited when you return to a FF dslr which, no matter how many focus points it may have, limits them all to a fairly small proportion of the frame. And while I get why many don't like EVFs, not only are they improving simply as viewing devices (among other things, the latest Olympus has a viewfinder that's second only to the 1Dx in magnification, apparently) they make it much easier to control the image you're creating since you can see the effects of changes in exposure etc. while looking through the viewfinder. This may not matter to you, but some of us find it helpful.

So if Canon's next FF camera were around the size of a 6D or 5DIII, and otherwise performed at least as well as those two, and mirrorless, I would buy one without the slightest hesitation. Maybe noone else would.... (And if sensor technology were to improve in such a way that the difference between FF and m43 shrank further, I wouldn't object to that, either.)

Logged

pharp

I'm a little surprised Canon hasn't made a MILC principally 'video' camera, since that seems to be what they're emphasizing now (the OVF is of course worthless). My video guy claims the Panasonic GH is really gaining in that area. I have no use for video. I hope Sony sells ALOT of these, so maybe Canon will take the mirrorless segment seriously and give us a good one (I'm not optimistic). They still have the best overall system. I was really disappointed with the half hearted M - not really awful, but certainly uninspired.

« Last Edit: November 15, 2013, 12:39:59 PM by pharp »

Logged

pharp

So if Canon's next FF camera were around the size of a 6D or 5DIII, and otherwise performed at least as well as those two, and mirrorless, I would buy one without the slightest hesitation. Maybe no one else would.... (And if sensor technology were to improve in such a way that the difference between FF and m43 shrank further, I wouldn't object to that, either.)

I think there is a common misconception that the only reason for making a MILC is to decrease the size - WRONG! As noted by others, there are many good reasons for ditching the mirror/pentaprism - inevitable IMHO. The problem to date, as I see it, there just haven't been any really compelling 'system' cameras available. If canon made a mirrorless 6D - size, etc being the same with a really good EVF - I think it would sell in droves. I'd buy one tommorrow.

As a dad with 2 kids(2.5 & 5yrs), the last thing I want to carry to disneyland is 5D III + 24-70 II. I live 20mins away from Disneyland, Anaheim, California and we have annual passes for our family. I see a lot of dads at disneyland busy taking picture with huge DSLR: 1DX, 5D III, 7D + grip and red ring lenses while the wifes taking care 1-3-4 kids herself

Well, that's one reason I bought a Fuji X-20 when we hiked to the bottom of the Grand Canyon in September. I didn't want to be lugging a massive DSLR down and back up. I was very glad I did. I wasn't doing the hike to take pictures, I was doing the hike because I wanted the experience and a small, high quality fixed lens zoom camera was perfect for that purpose.

Disneyland? Same thing.

I don't need no full frame camera...don't need no 300 mm zoom lens. High quality small sensor fixed lens camera like the Fuji will capture everything I need. It weighs practically nothing. I can put in on "P" and just shoot away. My kids are grown now, but whether its kids or grandkids, I don't need 16 x 24 prints of them with some guy in a Mickey costume.

Part of my point was that a full frame mirrorless interchangeable lens camera is far less practical for those kinds of situations than a good quality compact fixed lens zoom.